This past summer Thomas Rudis fell seriously behind on the rent for his plant-filled Bolton Hill apartment.

He’d been approved for federal disability benefits, but the funds hadn’t come through yet, he told the landlord, who said he would hold off on eviction “until the end of July” so that Rudis could come up with the roughly $1,200 still owed.

But on the morning of July 29, a Baltimore sheriff’s deputy arrived to evict him.

Under the city’s “abandonment ordinance,” Rudis was about to be locked out of his apartment – his possessions no longer his own. Thanks to a sympathetic building maintenance man, he was given an extra 24 hours before the locks were changed.

But even after borrowing money and scrambling to hire movers, the 60-year-old lost his plants, some of his artwork and other personal belongings.

“I lost very sentimental items, and I couldn’t do anything about it,” Rudis told The Brew. “I’ll never see those things again.”

The same scenario is experienced each year by thousands of people in Baltimore, Prince George’s and Baltimore counties, advocates say. Those are the three Maryland jurisdictions where an evicted person’s belongings are immediately deemed to be abandoned.

“The sheriff comes to the door, says the people have to leave and might give them, like, a minute to get whatever they can. But whatever else is left is legally considered abandoned, and the landlord can do with it as they choose,” said Albert Turner, staff attorney at the Public Justice Center.

“Family heirlooms, financial documents, technology, etc. – all is lost,” said Turner, part of a coalition supporting a Baltimore Council Bill 25-0087 aimed at rectifying that.

“Sometimes the landlord will ransom the property and say, ‘You give me $5,000, you can come back and get your mother’s ashes’”  – Albert Turner, Public Justice Center.

Sponsored by Councilman James Torrence, the bill allows tenants to get their property back for up to seven business days after eviction.

It is scheduled to be heard today at 5:15 p.m. in City Hall by the Housing & Economic Development Committee chaired by Torrence.

The measure set out a process for a tenant to seek written permission for an extension of this “reclamation period,” and also allows the landlord during that time to charge a reasonable storage fee.

In addition to making the eviction process more humane, Turner says, the bill would make it harder for vengeful landlords to profit off a tenant’s personal belongings.

“Sometimes the landlord will ransom the property and say, ‘Hey, you give me $5,000. You can come back and get your mother’s ashes or get your medication.’ We see that often.”

2007 Law Struck Down

In 2007, Baltimore changed the eviction law to allow a landlord to simply lock the tenant out and keep their possessions. It was an effort to end evictions that resulted in piles of possessions thrown onto the street creating blowing and moldering trash.

But the city never established a reclamation period as other localities did. Now it is out of step with Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, Chicago, Washington D.C. and dozens of other states and cities that give evicted tenants the right to reclaim property.

In 2024, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Baltimore’s abandonment law as unconstitutional.

The court found in Todman v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore that the city violated the due process property rights of Baltimore renters.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a West Baltimore couple whose possessions were taken in 2019 without their notice while they were at work.

Valuable jewelry, clothing, furniture and other items, including a family member’s ashes, were lost. The city was ordered to pay Marshall and Tiffany Todman $186,000 in damages and nearly $844,000 in attorneys’ fees in the landmark case.

Baltimore was ordered to pay Marshall and Tiffany Todman $186,000 in a case upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Advocates warn that the city is at risk to pay much more by continuing to leave the city’s abandonment law in place.

An ongoing class action suit filed by the attorney who represented the Todmans, Joseph Mack, has identified more than 3,000 people evicted under the city’s unconstitutional law.

Also Sued: Baltimore County

Baltimore County is also facing a legal challenge for giving landlords the right to take an evicted person’s possessions.

In June, Maryland Legal Aid sued the county on behalf of Sherry L. Gudger, a single mother living with multiple sclerosis who was evicted from her Halethorpe apartment.

Gudger had tried to remove the family’s possessions, but hadn’t managed to get all of them. When she returned from walking her eight-year-old son to school on the first day of classes last August, the remaining possessions were gone.

“A lot of people are going through hard times right now, and what happened to me and my family could happen to someone else,” Gudger said in a news release when the suit was filed.

“For the county law to strip an evicted person of essential belongings is simply kicking people when they are down”  – Zafar Shah, Maryland Legal Aid.

According to the complaint, Gudger lost a passport, her son’s bed, vocational tools and clothing.

“Losing your housing is already extremely destabilizing,” said Zafar Shah, Advocacy Director for Human Right to Housing at Maryland Legal Aid. “Then for the county law to strip you of essential belongings is simply kicking people when they are down.

“It becomes even harder for an evicted person to recover and regain stability. This policy deepens poverty,” he said.

Pushback from Landlords

Landlords and their lobbyists have pushed back on efforts to get statewide legislation clarifying tenants’ rights when they are evicted.

Last October, a state law took effect requiring Maryland landlords to provide at least six days’ notice before eviction. But a provision prohibiting landlords from taking possession of tenants’ belongings was removed from the final version of the bill.

Adam Skolnik, executive director of the Maryland Multi-Housing Association, expressed concerns about the concept of a reclamation period, but said he would not comment on the issue or on Torrence’s bill until he has seen a final version of it.

“The mayor’s office is in lockstep with us on this”  – Councilman James Torrence.

Torrence’s bill may be getting resistance from landlords, but Mayor Brandon Scott and fellow council members support it, he told The Brew.

“The mayor’s office is in lockstep with us on this,” he said, adding that there are still some technical issues to be worked out as they craft a “clean, clear eviction process [that] has to be very well balanced.”

“Everyone deserves due process, whether they are the possessor of the property or the person who’s leasing the apartment,” the 7th District councilman said.

“But ultimately for just decency and humanity, we have to think about the fact that people have to really start over if all their items are discarded.”

Living on the Edge

Creating a more well-defined eviction process that includes a week-long waiting period, advocates say, would help people struggling to make ends meet who don’t have much of a financial cushion.

What attorney Katie Davis, of the Pro Bono Resource Center of Maryland, sees frequently is a scenario where tenants think they’re going to be able to pay what they owe right up until the final eviction date.

“They have a reason to think it’s going to be worked out. Maybe they’re still negotiating with the landlord or just trying to get the funds. But then it falls through, and the sheriff comes,” said Davis, director of the resource center’s Courtroom Advocacy Project.

That’s pretty much what happened to Rudis, who says the funds from his federal disability benefits did come through, but not until after he was locked out.

“I got my money a little over 24 hours after being evicted,” he said. “I was that close.”